Germany do have an amazing depth of talent right now. Difficult to see anyone but them or Brazil winning the World Cup in a years time, although knock-out tournaments are inherently unpredictable.

Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.

One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.

I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.

Põhja Konn wrote:Germany do have an amazing depth of talent right now. Difficult to see anyone but them or Brazil winning the World Cup in a years time, although knock-out tournaments are inherently unpredictable.

Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.

One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.

I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.

Põhja Konn wrote:Germany do have an amazing depth of talent right now. Difficult to see anyone but them or Brazil winning the World Cup in a years time, although knock-out tournaments are inherently unpredictable.

Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.

One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.

I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.

so you want football turned into the NFL...

Remember that goal Argentina scored against Mexico in 2010 where it was miles offisde, the replay showed it was miles offside, the ref saw on the replay it was miles offside, and no one could do anything about it. They had to pretend that it was a legitimate goal, even after everyone saw that it wasn't. They had to live a lie for the rest of the game. All 22 players, the refs, the fans in the stadium and everyone outside it, knew within 30 seconds it wasn't a goal yet the whole world had to act like it was and go along with the fiction.

This was a world cup knockout game. Mexico went out as a result.

Was that not an absolute farce?

That was 1 day after Lampards goal was disallowed. That goal led to goaline technology eventually being introduced. But I don't see how Tevez's goal was any less ridiculous. I would question if England being 1 of the big markets for FIFA and its sponsors, and Mexico being a smaller one, led to one of those incidents being forever remembered and leading to changes, while the other is forgotten.

Why not give the Ref the power to overturn a goal like the one Tevez scores, seeing as they now have the power to legitimize goals like the one Lampard did?

Parte of the reason for that is the fact that goal line technology is a lot less controversial and intrusive than VAR, or disallowing a goal after a replay. I personally see nothing wrong with it, but others do. Its a much easier quick fix than the problem with the Tvez goal.

Brullnux wrote:Parte of the reason for that is the fact that goal line technology is a lot less controversial and intrusive than VAR, or disallowing a goal after a replay. I personally see nothing wrong with it, but others do. Its a much easier quick fix than the problem with the Tvez goal.

How is fixing the Tevez goal not a quick fix? You just take out the dumb rule that the ref has to hide his eyes from the screen after a goal.

Brullnux wrote:Parte of the reason for that is the fact that goal line technology is a lot less controversial and intrusive than VAR, or disallowing a goal after a replay. I personally see nothing wrong with it, but others do. Its a much easier quick fix than the problem with the Tvez goal.

How is fixing the Tevez goal not a quick fix? You just take out the dumb rule that the ref has to hide his eyes from the screen after a goal.

People (fifa) for some reason don't like the idea of a referee being able to change their mind after seeing a replay. That's why it's not a quick fix. Goal line tech doesn't change a decision, but makes it.

Põhja Konn wrote:Germany do have an amazing depth of talent right now. Difficult to see anyone but them or Brazil winning the World Cup in a years time, although knock-out tournaments are inherently unpredictable.

Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.

One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.

I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.

so you want football turned into the NFL...

Remember that goal Argentina scored against Mexico in 2010 where it was miles offisde, the replay showed it was miles offside, the ref saw on the replay it was miles offside, and no one could do anything about it. They had to pretend that it was a legitimate goal, even after everyone saw that it wasn't. They had to live a lie for the rest of the game. All 22 players, the refs, the fans in the stadium and everyone outside it, knew within 30 seconds it wasn't a goal yet the whole world had to act like it was and go along with the fiction.

This was a world cup knockout game. Mexico went out as a result.

Was that not an absolute farce?

That was 1 day after Lampards goal was disallowed. That goal led to goaline technology eventually being introduced. But I don't see how Tevez's goal was any less ridiculous. I would question if England being 1 of the big markets for FIFA and its sponsors, and Mexico being a smaller one, led to one of those incidents being forever remembered and leading to changes, while the other is forgotten.

Why not give the Ref the power to overturn a goal like the one Tevez scores, seeing as they now have the power to legitimize goals like the one Lampard did?

sure, they're a dime a dozen - 'hand of god', mendes v ManU, Henry v Ireland, Graham Poll's 3 yellows, Jerzey Dudek's coming off his line early for every penalty, et al...refs make mistakes - they're human and that's a part of football. Have been for over a centuryYou can't stop a free flowing game for every decision, nor can you stop it later to take things back because the ref missed it or let something go... "quick, stop the game, I think I saw something and I just want to check it" Seriously??

As if it's not bad enough at the cricket with every umpire no longer able to make a decision and head for the video at every 'howzat!' - and that's a game that doesn't flow freely like football. Not to mention challenging calls so we all sit around twiddling our thumbs awaiting a decision...And then you can kiss goodbye to playing the advantage - ref waves play-on only for the opposing manager/players to demand a challenge. And what if his call was correct? Will you reset the timer, then restart play from where everyone was standing before the stoppage??That's the NFL, where the last 5mins of play can take a half hour.

Imagine going to a 7.45pm kick off for a midweek game and not leaving the stadium til midnight after all the stoppages... or even later if it goes to extra time. Same for watching it live.Don't forget all the logistics for the match organisers/police/public transport/etc for something like this.what a f**king 'mare just because people can't accept the ref's decision.

I have no issue with goal line technology, but that's as far as it should go.

Then again, on a positive, match of the day would mean less time for the pundits - they'd have to show more of the play, because they'd not be able to do all their own armchair reffing of replays after it all gets done at the game itself.

Põhja Konn wrote:Germany do have an amazing depth of talent right now. Difficult to see anyone but them or Brazil winning the World Cup in a years time, although knock-out tournaments are inherently unpredictable.

Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.

One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.

I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.

so you want football turned into the NFL...

Remember that goal Argentina scored against Mexico in 2010 where it was miles offisde, the replay showed it was miles offside, the ref saw on the replay it was miles offside, and no one could do anything about it. They had to pretend that it was a legitimate goal, even after everyone saw that it wasn't. They had to live a lie for the rest of the game. All 22 players, the refs, the fans in the stadium and everyone outside it, knew within 30 seconds it wasn't a goal yet the whole world had to act like it was and go along with the fiction.

This was a world cup knockout game. Mexico went out as a result.

Was that not an absolute farce?

That was 1 day after Lampards goal was disallowed. That goal led to goaline technology eventually being introduced. But I don't see how Tevez's goal was any less ridiculous. I would question if England being 1 of the big markets for FIFA and its sponsors, and Mexico being a smaller one, led to one of those incidents being forever remembered and leading to changes, while the other is forgotten.

Why not give the Ref the power to overturn a goal like the one Tevez scores, seeing as they now have the power to legitimize goals like the one Lampard did?

Imagine going to a 7.45pm kick off for a midweek game and not leaving the stadium til midnight after all the stoppages... or even later if it goes to extra time. Same for watching it live.Don't forget all the logistics for the match organisers/police/public transport/etc for something like this.what a f**king 'mare just because people can't accept the ref's decision.

But that's not what would happen. At all. You are exaggerating in my opinion.

NFL games take 3 hours because the game involves 20 second stoppages between plays, constant substitutions, long breaks between scores etc. THe VR's which don't even happen every game, take 1-2 minutes. And that is extensive because of their retarded VR system (inferior to Rugby) and because they have 10 million rules to decide between, and because half the battle is locating the ball in between a dozen big guys in a scrum.

BTW by your logic having goal line technology prolongs the game as well. Lampard's goal for example, since it was disalowed, the clock kept running. But with VR, they would have had to stop the game, check the technology, allow the goal, allow the celebration, restart the game 3 minutes later. Game delayed by 3 minutes. And maybe it would have then gone to extra time and penalties. So the poor fans would have had to go home an hour later. The fans who flew 10 000 miles from Europe in order to do nothing other than to watch and talk about football.

Rugby has VR. Do Rugby games take 4 hours like you suggest? I googled the times for the world cup final in 2015, and it kicked off at 16.03 and finished at 16.51.

And if we look at the Tevez goal or the Mendez goal or the Chelsea Barcelona 2009 semi finals, the game/ drama in all those situations actually went on for quite a while because of all the complaining and controversy. It takes about 3.4 seconds after a goal is scored for a video ref in the booth to see a replay and say "no it was offside/ hand ball, give a free kick".

This is while the players are celebrating anyway, and the other team is protesting anyway. So its not exactly stopping the game or eating into it.

In conclusion, if you are correct and VR's would prolongue football games from an average of 1 hour 50 minutes (including H.T) to 4 hours, yeah you have a point.

If however, VR's would maybe prologue the occasional game by 1 minute, shorten the occasional game by a few minutes (due to lack of controversy and protest) and for the most part not have any effect on 99% of games, then I don't see the problem at all.

The Hitch wrote:But that's not what would happen. At all. You are exaggerating in my opinion.

NFL games take 3 hours because the game involves 20 second stoppages between plays, constant substitutions, long breaks between scores etc. THe VR's which don't even happen every game, take 1-2 minutes. And that is extensive because of their retarded VR system (inferior to Rugby) and because they have 10 million rules to decide between, and because half the battle is locating the ball in between a dozen big guys in a scrum.

BTW by your logic having goal line technology prolongs the game as well. Lampard's goal for example, since it was disalowed, the clock kept running. But with VR, they would have had to stop the game, check the technology, allow the goal, allow the celebration, restart the game 3 minutes later. Game delayed by 3 minutes. And maybe it would have then gone to extra time and penalties. So the poor fans would have had to go home an hour later. The fans who flew 10 000 miles from Europe in order to do nothing other than to watch and talk about football.

Rugby has VR. Do Rugby games take 4 hours like you suggest? I googled the times for the world cup final in 2015, and it kicked off at 16.03 and finished at 16.51.

And if we look at the Tevez goal or the Mendez goal or the Chelsea Barcelona 2009 semi finals, the game/ drama in all those situations actually went on for quite a while because of all the complaining and controversy. It takes about 3.4 seconds after a goal is scored for a video ref in the booth to see a replay and say "no it was offside/ hand ball, give a free kick".

This is while the players are celebrating anyway, and the other team is protesting anyway. So its not exactly stopping the game or eating into it.

In conclusion, if you are correct and VR's would prolongue football games from an average of 1 hour 50 minutes (including H.T) to 4 hours, yeah you have a point.

If however, VR's would maybe prologue the occasional game by 1 minute, shorten the occasional game by a few minutes (due to lack of controversy and protest) and for the most part not have any effect on 99% of games, then I don't see the problem at all.

[bolded] goal-line technology in the vein of 'hawkeye' or similar - the only one I've seen touted that would be of any benefit would be the sensors in the ball and on the goal line. The ball completely crosses the line or not - end of. No back tracking of whether it was offside back outside the box or not, or whether there's a tugged shirt, or whether there was a dodgy moment further up the pitch that contributed... And just how far do you want to take it? Do you check every tackle/free kick to see if he got the ball or not? There's countless times of it going the wrong way - you win some, you lose some. Same with corners and goal kicks... That's football...

The refs are there to do a job, but if you're checking every decision or even missed decisions against a replay, you may as well not have a ref or linesmen [person].

How can a match not take longer if you're constantly stopping it? And does the clock stop for every check, or will they just increase the length of added time at the end of each half? A set time for each stop, or taken on actual time stopped considering whether it takes 1 or lots of viewings (various camera angles) to make the decision...3.4 seconds? Really? Look at the rugby try or cricket decisions - they show various angles as well as the same (for rugby) for an incident (or few) upfield. Then the big presentation on the scoreboard, which alone takes up your 3 seconds - gotta have your sponsor's logos shown. So much for the ref blowing his whistle for the try and play goes on, or the umpire just raising his hand (or shaking his head) and play going on.Sure, not every call will need this, but you get the picture...Do you honestly think it'll prolong a game by only "1 minute"?

It's always said that the best games are those when the ref is barely noticed, yet by adding an "electronic ref" that will be highly invasive on the game, the game gets improved??You'll kill a free flowing game and turn it into the stop/start of the NFL

The Hitch wrote:But that's not what would happen. At all. You are exaggerating in my opinion.

NFL games take 3 hours because the game involves 20 second stoppages between plays, constant substitutions, long breaks between scores etc. THe VR's which don't even happen every game, take 1-2 minutes. And that is extensive because of their retarded VR system (inferior to Rugby) and because they have 10 million rules to decide between, and because half the battle is locating the ball in between a dozen big guys in a scrum.

BTW by your logic having goal line technology prolongs the game as well. Lampard's goal for example, since it was disalowed, the clock kept running. But with VR, they would have had to stop the game, check the technology, allow the goal, allow the celebration, restart the game 3 minutes later. Game delayed by 3 minutes. And maybe it would have then gone to extra time and penalties. So the poor fans would have had to go home an hour later. The fans who flew 10 000 miles from Europe in order to do nothing other than to watch and talk about football.

Rugby has VR. Do Rugby games take 4 hours like you suggest? I googled the times for the world cup final in 2015, and it kicked off at 16.03 and finished at 16.51.

And if we look at the Tevez goal or the Mendez goal or the Chelsea Barcelona 2009 semi finals, the game/ drama in all those situations actually went on for quite a while because of all the complaining and controversy. It takes about 3.4 seconds after a goal is scored for a video ref in the booth to see a replay and say "no it was offside/ hand ball, give a free kick".

This is while the players are celebrating anyway, and the other team is protesting anyway. So its not exactly stopping the game or eating into it.

In conclusion, if you are correct and VR's would prolongue football games from an average of 1 hour 50 minutes (including H.T) to 4 hours, yeah you have a point.

If however, VR's would maybe prologue the occasional game by 1 minute, shorten the occasional game by a few minutes (due to lack of controversy and protest) and for the most part not have any effect on 99% of games, then I don't see the problem at all.

[bolded] goal-line technology in the vein of 'hawkeye' or similar - the only one I've seen touted that would be of any benefit would be the sensors in the ball and on the goal line. The ball completely crosses the line or not - end of. No back tracking of whether it was offside back outside the box or not, or whether there's a tugged shirt, or whether there was a dodgy moment further up the pitch that contributed... And just how far do you want to take it? Do you check every tackle/free kick to see if he got the ball or not? There's countless times of it going the wrong way - you win some, you lose some. Same with corners and goal kicks... That's football...

The refs are there to do a job, but if you're checking every decision or even missed decisions against a replay, you may as well not have a ref or linesmen [person].

How can a match not take longer if you're constantly stopping it? And does the clock stop for every check, or will they just increase the length of added time at the end of each half? A set time for each stop, or taken on actual time stopped considering whether it takes 1 or lots of viewings (various camera angles) to make the decision...3.4 seconds? Really? Look at the rugby try or cricket decisions - they show various angles as well as the same (for rugby) for an incident (or few) upfield. Then the big presentation on the scoreboard, which alone takes up your 3 seconds - gotta have your sponsor's logos shown. So much for the ref blowing his whistle for the try and play goes on, or the umpire just raising his hand (or shaking his head) and play going on.Sure, not every call will need this, but you get the picture...Do you honestly think it'll prolong a game by only "1 minute"?

It's always said that the best games are those when the ref is barely noticed, yet by adding an "electronic ref" that will be highly invasive on the game, the game gets improved??You'll kill a free flowing game and turn it into the stop/start of the NFL

Did you watch Confederations Cup at all? The framework for a working system was on display, despite all the problems that occured with it. Those problems largely came to be because no-one involved had any experience working with that system. If it gets properly worked in, there'll be very little need for additional stoppages in the game, although some of the existing ones may take a bit longer. For the VAR system to get properly worked in it needs put in constant use, short summer tournaments alone are not enough for that.

Biggest challenge are potential offsides that end up with goal being scored. Those situations can end bizarrly, with celebrations put on hold, before video is reviewed. Much like it works in ice hockey. It takes time getting used to, but won't really change the overall nature of the game. There's also an option of not including those situations for reviewing by a VAR.

Penalties, red cards and goals (in case of a suspicion of offside or deliberate handball) and specially egregious cases of gamesmanship (not every single easyish fall) should be subjects for review if needed, and nothing else. If a situation is put up for review, the final decision is solely for an assistant referee behind the screen to make, no need for extra monitor pitchside for match official. He must trust his assistant like he does currently in case of offside calls.

Almost all of those situations that are meant to be reviewed inevitably lead to a break in play anyway, no need for extra stoppages just to accomondate reviewing those situations will be there. Most things happening during a game will be for match referee to decide like it has always been. When the amount of situations that can be reviewed is limited enough, the VARs can work well and help make the game better without changing its nature, I've got no doubt about that.

Psg making a mockery of the FFP rules. I hope they get knocked out of the champions league either in the group stages or by a team like Napoli in the round of 16, who built their success not on money but youth.

Brullnux wrote:Psg making a mockery of the FFP rules. I hope they get knocked out of the champions league either in the group stages or by a team like Napoli in the round of 16, who built their success not on money but youth.

We have to wait around a year and half to find out whether they actually managed to do so as the impact of their this summers transfer dealings is being evaluated only at the next autumn and possible sanctions revealed early 2019.

The sums coughed out by PSG are obviouly beyond ridiculous, but somehow aren't angering me nearly as much when Real Madrid started hogging together Ballon d'Or winners for their first galactico project. Probably because I'm older, more cynical now and completely used to seeing biggest clubs in football buying success and trophies.

Anyway, PSG now is a very top heavy team, and are dangerously thin in midfield and defense. When injuries and suspensions start to hit those areas, they could become very vulnerable, specially in the Champions League. In many ways they resemble the Real Madrid team from the time of their first edition of galacticos, the one that ended up being a universal laughing stock.